> Can you point out exactly which of these are:
> - 8086-compatible
> - 'normal' applications (not TSR)
> - floating point-aware
> - free to use, modify and distribute
No, I can't. As I said earlier I haven't tried any of them, at least that I
remember (I may have tried some of them a long time
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 07:57:12 -0500, David McMackins wrote:
> Based on the terms of the GPL, I think the package info file should say
> GPL since the package must still be distributed under the terms of the
> GPL (that's how copyleft works).
GPL itself doesn't mean much, since there are many varian
The FreeDOS serial communications is now working on my modern PCs. The serial
port was expecting DTR and RTS signals to be asserted. Once they were
asserted, it worked.
Thanks to all who responded!
Tim
From: Schoenfelder, Tim M
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 4:14 PM
To: freedos-user@lists.source
Based on the terms of the GPL, I think the package info file should say
GPL since the package must still be distributed under the terms of the
GPL (that's how copyleft works).
Happy Hacking,
David E. McMackins II
Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972)
Associate Member, Fr
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 06:45:33 -0500, David McMackins wrote:
> Why does your "copying policy" say MIT but the license in RCAL.TXT is
> GPL? Confusing.
No it's not, if you can read. Here's an excerpt of RCAL.TXT just for you:
rcal is published under the MIT license, as printed below.
(...)
rca
Why does your "copying policy" say MIT but the license in RCAL.TXT is
GPL? Confusing.
Happy Hacking,
David E. McMackins II
Supporting Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation (#2296972)
Associate Member, Free Software Foundation (#12889)
www.mcmackins.org www.delwink.com
www.eff.org www.gnu.org w
